| There are spoilers for two fairly new books in this post. Beware or be square, as Blaster would (unfortunately) say.
I've read two books in the last month that were on Entertainment Weekly's new classics list. The first "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy. The second was "Del Canto" by Ann Patchett.
You may have heard of "The Road." It's been lauded over the last couple of years and is being made into a Major Motion Picture (TM) starring Viggo Mortensen. I'm sure he'll be fantastic in the role of "the man" (or as he's called in the movie "Father"... My personal favorite character name in the movie is "Baby Eater." Guess what he does in the book?!?). But, that said, I don't think that I'll be seeing the movie. It's not that I'm adverse to postapocalyptic novels. I actually kind of like them. It's certainly sad and everything, as I was completely expecting. I didn't expect it to be boring.
It might be the way that it was written. It's very sparce, which I suppose could be used as a reflection for the shattered world the two main characters are living in. But, not unlike the first Lord of the Rings novel, there is a whole lot of walking and searching involved. They walk down the road, trying to avoid people as best they can. They loose they're supplies. They find more. They make their way to the coast and then they make their way along the coast. Then "the man," who was suffering from TB or fallout sickness or something, dies. "The boy" then ends up with a group of people that may or may not be good guys (it's implied that they are, even though they shot an arrow at "the man" to get their supplies).
See, it's not that the novel was bad. It had some tense bits, like when they find something unnerving in the cellar of a house. Aside from one scene the man was talking to some old guy about the today and the one that was burned away somewhere in the near past, there didn't seem to be a lot to it. "The Road" won the Pulizer. I don't get it, but then again I'm not exactly a literature guy.
To be completely contrary to that, I also read "Del Canto," another literature type of book. This one was better, despite the unnerving change in narrative that occurred every few paragraphs or so. What this did do, however, was give you insight to a whole lot of characters. Many of them were fascinating. "Del Canto" is set in an unnamed Latin American country ruled by a president of Japanese descent (in other words, Peru). Terrorists intent on kidnapping the president for ransom invade the home of the VP and take everybody hostage. Except the President isn't there. Instead the terrorists hold a bunch of foreign dignitaries and one opera singer hostage for months making fruitless demands. There's a whole lot of Helsinki Syndrome going on and things end up going badly for some of them by the end.
I liked this one better than "The Road." It's not there was action, because there wasn't. But there was real development of characters and the plot moved forward in a believable fashion. It was an interesting take on a terrorist/hostage situation when the terrorists really don't know what they want aside from the fact that they don't want to kill anybody.
There were two things that annoyed me in general though. One of the hostages just happened to speak every language one could possibly need in a situation involving hostages from a dozen different countries. This allowed for the characters to speak with one another, but every time the dude translated I was thinking, "Oh give me a break." I know that the romance languages have similarities, but that borders on ridiculous. The other is that everybody, the terrorists included, looooooooved opera. I mean, okay. The guest of honor comes to the party because of the singer. The rest of the guests come for the singing as well. But the terrorists too? The hostage negotiator? Some random guy who knows the priest? The frickin' miliary sitting outside the house? Worse, more than a few of the people were madly in love with the opera singer, including some outside of the house that weren't in daily contact with her. She was, I think, a literary Mary Sue.
So there you go. Two book reviews, just like I promised. Now go read books instead of reading this! | comments: Leave a comment   |
| Good God Almighty, I almost forgot I had this thing. I've got a great excuse for doing so, but who wants to hear all that crap (it involves lay offs, new jobs, a whole lot of writing, and of course general laziness).
The new job is what allows some general leisureness like posting to my LiveJournal, writing the next great (fantasy) novel, and working on a new web site that allows me to actually use my mad meteorology skills that have been sitting dormant as I continue to search in vain for such a job in, supposedly, the job hot bed of universe.
The job... my old one after moving out here is one that I loathed, one that pays next to nothing, was an hour from home, and somehow left me bored to tears and with no time to do anything else. The new one has slightly worse hours, better pay, is a half-hour from home, and is far more laid back. So better, if not perfect.
Writing has been entirely of the non-Transformers variety. I'm usually rather ADD when I write. I'll go a few pages on some story, then stop and work on another for a while. I've managed to build up quite a collection of unfinished pieces that way. But for the last few months, I've worked only on one story. Though I still haven't managed to make the time I'd like to really get into it, I've still managed to make headway with it. I know where I want the story to go. I know how it's going to end. It's very strange and really not like me at all. But it's sure fun.
And the website. It's only just started. It's nothing more than a front page right now with a lovely MS Word Word Art and quaint little "Coming Soon!" But if you want to see it (and/or want a forecast), just go to Full Frontal Weather to check it out. And no, it's one of thooooose kinds of sites...
Hope that doesn't disappoint you... | | comments: 2 comments or Leave a comment |
| Character deaths, that is. I know it's a common subject. Though "common" isn't maybe the right word there. Sure it's the second post subject in four posts, but the posts *are* quite a span of time apart...
Anyway, I was watching "The Closer" season finale yesterday (spoiler, spoiler, blah, blah, blah). It got to the end of the episode with the murder solved and everybody happy. And that's when my heart started racing. I knew, I just *knew*, that someone was going to die. That somebody with a beef for the LAPD in general and the "Priority Homicide Division" in particular and tear the place up.
Then, it cut to the next scene. "Whoa," I thought to myself. Everybody survived on the show. Every major character lived to see the end of the season. As they have, I realized, since season one. Which naturally made me think how the writer's room in nearly every other drama on TV probably has a dart board with pictures the actors on their show so they can decide who is going to kick the can this year in the finale. Which I've talked about before, so I won't again.
But I do think that "The Closer" in general lends credence to my own motto about characters in general, whether it's TV, movies, or books. Which is, that characters are more interesting alive than dead (with the obvious exceptions of vampires and Alpha Trion). Sure, they could have killed off Tau or Gabriel in the finale to had a bit more of shock value. But instead, they were smart and kept everybody breathing so that they could continue to grow as characters and insight to the show's dialogue. The show manages to create drama and excitement with smart plotting and good writing instead of showy ads saying "One of these people will be dead tomorrow".
A little something for the kid's that want to start writing to think about. Sometimes, it's okay for a major character to, you know, live.
Now I'm going to destroy that broken record so that maybe I'll post about something else... | | comments: Leave a comment |
| The subject is a warning to those that don't. :)
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6810106
In the above link you will find a long-winded article by some "expert" saying something that has been en vogue for the last four seasons: that the Packers are better off without Brett Favre. The same Brett Favre that keeps throwing for 4000 yards a season. The same Favre that has had one non-winning season in 17 years as a starting quarterback. The same guy that even idiots like this writer admits can still play and so on and so forth. For the last four years, we've been hearing from morons like this guy that this still-good, still-strong-armed, still-motivated, and still-more-talented-than-75%-of-the-quarterbacks-in-the-NFL quarterback is bringing the Packers down and that they should trade him. I've even seen articles saying they should *cut* him. As in not get anything in return.
I admit that I am a Packer fan and I like Brett Favre as a player. But I consider myself a *football* fan more than anything else. I don't typically care what game is on the teevee; I'll watch it anyway. But do like the Packers and Favre. He throws a lot of interceptions because he tries force the ball into triple coverage. He thinks he can carry the team, by himself, to victory, which is impossible in this sport. This is no different than early in his career, when he was surrounded by more talent. The difference was, you know, the talent. The Packers have Donald Driver (age 32) and a bunch of unproven young guys. It's amazing that Driver catches anything with how much coverage he has to fight through. Their current stock of running backs have less than 100 carries in their careers, let alone in a season. Their defense is better than it has been in years, but they lack experience. Their offense is young, might be talented (but who knows... their unproven), but has even less experience, especially in the skill positions.
But that's not the problem according to this high-priced dolt. No, the problem is their most experienced player is... well, I really don't know. The argument always seems to boil down to "He's still there. Why is he still there?" The guy the rest of the young guys look up to and the guy that they want to win for. He's the problem. They should let the backup play now because he's new and stuff. That way dunderheads like this guy will have something new to write about. Whatever. Go Packer! And this football fan says, Go Favre... when you're good and ready.
I am now done talking about things that only I care about... | | comments: Leave a comment |
| It is "Spider Week" in that rather large-ish town about an hour from my new hometown, and Summer Blockbuster Season officially starts on Friday, I thought I would take a moment to herald a movie that is about to disappear into the tiny screen in the back of the theater. You know the one. The one that smells weird.
I am talkin about "Hot Fuzz." It is unbelievably funny and likely more worthy of the price of admission (and pop and popcorn and M&M's and junk) than half the movies coming out this summer. Basically, if you like buddy movies, cop films, british humor, humor in general, James Bond as a moustache-twirller, and/or "Shaun of the Dead," you will love this movie.
That said, I took this new found respect for the types of movies that "Hot Fuzz" pays homage to and watched "Tango and Cash" on Encore last week. I am, as a result, now stupider than I was before I watched it.
Now go to the movie theater and get ready to laugh! | | comments: 1 comment or Leave a comment |
| The follow post contains spoilers for shows that I watch. Some of them are as far in the past as Transformers. Some are as recent as Heroes. Be warned!
---
There is, I think, a fine line to walk when it comes to killing off characters in different media. As a fanfic writer, it's something that I struggle with sometimes. When one writes about war, it is inevitable that characters will die during the course of the story. The problem is that, with the exception of Alpha Trion in G1 Transformers, characters are more interesting when they are, you know, alive. Fanfic writing adds the extra fun of not actually "owning" the characters, so inevitably you will be killing off someone's favorite and thus pissing them off.
In watching the professionals, particularly on television, it seems that fanfic writers aren't the only ones that have that problem. Where does a writer cross the line? When does he or she pull the trigger (so to speak) on a character and decide that we've learned enough about them and it's now time for them to die? It can add definite drama to a show, but when is it a case of killing someone just for the dramatic affect and when is it meaningful? It can vary from show to show, of course. And definitely for different reasons. Some shows do a good job of it ("24," for example). Others are almost tentative about it ("Heroes," most definitely).
I think to demonstrate different good and bad cases character death, it's best to look at how TV shows handle it on an individual basis. Growing up, you didn't really see a lot of characters dying off outside of soap operas (and there, frankly, you could expect them to return sometime in the future). You didn't sit back and expect a "very special episode" of the A-Team in which Murdoch takes a bullet in the eye for B.A. during sweeps. It changed during the 90s and, like the season-ending cliffhanger phenomonon, I think the Star Trek: the Next Generation played a big role in it. It was shocking when Yar (while dull, still a major character) died. It was dramatic. It starting a trend. Shows ranging from NYPD Blues to ER to Buffy were doing it too. Now it's almost expected that someone's going to die during the course of the season, especially if you work in an ensemble cast. Even Law & Order, the king of procedural TV shows, isn't immune anymore.
Take "24," for example. That show makes its living out of killing off well-known and beloved characters (yet Kim Bauer is still around...strange). Season 5 was especially brutal for long-time fans of the show with President Palmer and Michelle biting it in the first five minutes, Tony and Edgar and Samwise Gamgee (fine, Lynn) later. With 24 being a big-ass war story (albeit an unconventional war) with a huge rotating cast, it has managed to get away with killing off characters in shocking ways without making it seem like they're not dying just to make the show more dramatic. While I'd've much prefered Tony to go out in more of a blaze of glory (like George did in season 2), the fact that Curtis is around to generally kick ass kind of made him redundant.
"Lost" is different though. They have a big rotating cast as well, but somehow they've managed to have a bit more of a mixed result. Again, it's realistic that characters are going to die. The writer's have made some smart choices (not killing Jack during the pilot, as they originally planned on doing; keeping Hurley alive; etc.), they've made some questionable ones too. Boone made sense. He was a sacrifice the island demanded when Locke started questioning himself. In addition, it gave us insight into Jack's character. Plus, what more could they have possibly done with him after the revelation that he not only wanted to make time with his step-sister, but that he *did* make time with his step-sister. Shannon's (the aforementioned step-sister) death also made sense in that her story was obviously done too. Then there's the demise of the Tailies, who seemed to have been introduced less because they needed more characters on the show, but rather because they needed more characters to die. Their introductory episode pretty much set the tone as they basically get wiped out not three days on the island (as opposed to the rest of the people from the plane, who lived in the lap of luxury by comparison). Of the four that made it to the rest of the castaways, three are now dead for frankly stupid reasons. Ana Lucia's was basically to shock, and even though she was annoying as hell, she didn't really finish her story, like Boone and Shannon had. Eko? Sorry, writers, but make up your mind. Smoky gives him a pass in season 2, but now it's season 3 and someone has to die so Smoky changes his mind? And don't even get me started on Libby.
While both 24 and Lost have characters dying to shock the audiances and drive buzz for the show, I think that 24 handles the situation better somehow. Maybe it's the urgency of the situation and the pace of the show. Maybe it's because you feel it more in your gut since you know the characters better. George's sacrifice redeemed a jerk-off character. Chappelle's gasp-inducing sendoff was to buy time in order to save the world. The sight of fan-fave Edgar dropping behind table dead from nerve gas. Tony managing to save his own humanity but not killing the man in cold blood who killed his wife, only to have his own life snatched away because of it. There felt like there were consequences and reasons behind each death, not just a vessel for watercooler talk. It doesn't feel like Lost has managed to capture that viceral feeling. I think that the best thing that Lost could do is keep their people alive. The characters and their backstories (and how they tie into the mystery on the island) is what makes that show interesting, not which character is going to get eatan by a polar bear.
Which brings us to two other shows, both of which have been somewhat (and smartly) restrained in who dies and when. That's not to say Battlestar Galatica hasn't seen it's share of deaths, but they have done a bang-up job of being dramatic without resorting to decapitations or something to bring about the effect. But you could still tell that the writer's felt the need to show some major characters die after three seasons. Humanity *is* fighting a losing battle for their own existance, after all. Thus Ellen Tigh's demise at the hands of Col. Tigh (for being a collaborator with the Cylon's) and Jammer's death by inquistion. These two are fairly incidental characters. Ellen was mostly known for her shrewishness and being an obviously bad influence on her husband before the season three reset. Jammer's big role was his conflict as a collaborator who thought he was doing the right thing (and got sucked out an airlock for his troubles). It was with Kat that they changed this a bit. She was more than a bit player. She had supplanted Apollo as Starbuck's biggest rival. She was one of the better Viper pilots. She was the CAG of Galactica during the occupation. Then we find out she was also a drug runner who might have helped inadvertantly seed the Twelve Colonies with Cylons. And finally she redeemed herself, selflessly saving an entire shipful of people while dying of radition poisoning. It might have felt a bit rushed, but if you're going to kill off a potentially interesting character, that's the way to do it.
Which is what Heroes did too. All week, NBC went on and on about one of the characters was going to die. All week I was telling people that it was going to be a cop out and they were going to keep off Eden. Sure enough... But I don't blame the show's writers. Heroes is still new and can't really risk killing off a character that people will be drawn to (Hiro or Claire or Peter... even though Peter was number 2 on my list for who was going to die) and drive audiances away. What was pleasantly surprising was the fact that Eden's death was a sacrifice by her. She was going to do what no one else could and kill the bad guy before he could hurt anyone else. And when she was overcome, rather than let him steal her powers she turned a gun meant for him on herself. She went from a selfish child to selfless hero before our eyes.
Now, after seeing the good and the bad in television, I suppose it's time for some unsolicited fanfic-writing advice.
My first rule when it comes to killing off a character is this: Don't. My second rule is: See Rule #1. But... sometimes someone has to die. It's an unfortunate fact of life, especially for Transformer fanfic writers. There *is* a war going on. If you're going to do it, please God don't let the following happen:
1) Killing off Optimus or Megatron in the first chapter and replacing him with a superpowerful creation of your making. If your story requires a lack of Op or Megs, try just not having them in the story.
2) Wholesale destruction of characters whose toys you disliked as kids. Yes, Brawn's toy sucked. So did Ironhide's. Ratchet's was the king of suck. Wholesale destruction for the sake of destruction is still bad.
3) Killing a character to make your story seem real or dramatic. There are other ways of doing drama without killing someone (see Battlestar Galactic). If someone has to die, make it for a reason. It doesn't *have* to be to save the universe, but a reason besides "boy, will people be surprised!" would make it go down better.
Maybe I'll write something more formal later (and maybe it'll be like more writing essays I say I'm going to write and it'll just stay unwritten). For now, I'll leave it at those three points. I thinks those are the biggest ones, especially for new writers. Read what's out there and see how other people handle it. Heck, use it as an excuse to watch more TV and see what the pros are doing (and doing wrong). That's always my excuse for watching too much TV. | | comments: 2 comments or Leave a comment |
| ...on Jack McDevitt, sci-fi writer, uh, extraordinaire?
I got one of his books for a dollar at the Half-Price Bookstore, eventually got around to reading it, and I thought "That was... okay?" He seemed to be one of those populist type writers that can crank out books that were high on action and low on depth, kind of a Dan Brown of the sci-fi world. It was imaginitive in parts with, as I said, plenty of action. My problem after finishing it was that it almost seemed like I was reading a screenplay instead of a book. The thing, while longer than any movie would be, still felt like he was pre-packaging the book readymade for an eventual movie deal. Characters were killed off at a fairly steady clip leaving a predictable three that ended up staying alive, including the pair that was the love interest.
Still, I'm the type of guy that gives second chances to (most...) authors, so I read a couple of other, shorter books that he wrote. This time, I got them from the library instead of dropping a couple of dollars I could waste on something else. What did I end up with? Really, more of the same: books that felt pre-packaged for an eventual movie deal. Characters were again killed off at a steady clip in both of the ones I finished leaving alive a few characters, including the pair that acted as the love interest. In fact, in on of the books, I actually predicted the three people that would end up alive and well by the end of the story. I couldn't even finish the last one, 'cause it was starting to feel like deja vu all over again.
It's hard to come down too hard on the guy, since he's published plenty of books. He's obviously doing something right. I just wish I could figure out what it is.
In unrelated news, I Heart Heroes. In fact, I dare say I'm addicted to the show at this point. | | comments: 1 comment or Leave a comment |
| When I'm thinking about writing type things, like plots and dialogues, I do my best thinking in the car for some reason. There's a bit of a downside to this though. I have a horrible short-term memory and am at risk of forgetting what genius thing I had thought up on my way to wherever. Tape recorders don't work for me. I've tried them and it's never come out well. I keep a notepad with me so I can write down quick notes to myself at stoplights or whatever.
Another place that inspiration used to strike was at work. For the three years at my old job, I'd come in on whatever shift, get a fair portion of my work done, and then use my Hotmail account like a word processor and start writing whatever fic is inspiring me at the moment. In the 2+ years I've been at my new job, however it's totally different. I'm basically doing the sort of work as my old job, but with better pay, better perks, and the same crap-ass schedule. I even have a longer drive, which means more inspiration on my way into work. But here I've written next to nothing. Totally bizarre. And totally a subject only I care about. :)
In other writing news, I sat down for two hours today at home to write. I've been pouring random ideas and dialogue into notebooks lately from a wide range of stories and thought that some down time on the home front would be the perfect opportunity to get some of them into a readable format. Instead, I fiddled with this and that, drummed my fingers on the keyboard and watched "asdf" and "jkl;" line up like little soldiers. When I finally did start writing, it was for a totally different story than the four others I've had on my mind for the last week. Don't know how you other story-jugglers do it, but it seems to me that I can't. :) | | comments: Leave a comment |
| First, using LJ at work just contines to get more bizarre. I really can't wait for some better computers up in here.
I was just doing some bore-at-work style updates to my website. Nothing big because, you know, my knowledge of website building rivals that of your average six-year-old. SInce I'm cheap and use Tripod's free service to display Prime's Watercloset, I get those annoying adds lined up at the top of the page. Tonight, for really the first time, I bothered to look at them. They have nothing at all to do with Transformers. Instead, they grab "watercloset" part of the page and display ads for do-it-yourself plumbing, wholesale bathroom supplies, and apparently a rockin' drain cleaner.
I might be wrong, but I think they're missing their target market by a few degrees of magnitude... :) | | comments: Leave a comment |
| Or at least the best of what I've seen. It's not like I've seen every sci-fi show in existence. For instance, one show on my list I had not seen until the Sci-Fi Channel decided to start airing it, despite languishing for two years in TV's own version of Hamburger Hill: Friday evenings. But still, I tend to enjoy shows that the common person might consider television for nerds only. Here's a list of the shows I think are the best and maybe even a few reasons why.
1) "Battlestar Galactica" - specifically, the modern version. Not only is it the best sci-fi on TV (perhaps ever) but it is one of the best shows on television. As I'll explain in a future post, it is a crime that NBC (the parent company to the Sci-Fi Channel) hasn't put this show in it's lineup instead of letting it stay on basic cable. From the opening miniseries through the shocking season two finale, it has raised the bar for science fiction. The show's writers aren't afraid of taking chances that might tear at a fan of the original version of the show (Starbuck is a girl! Boomer is a Cylon!) or at fans of the current show (re: the season two finale). It transcends mere science fiction and borders on a phenomonon and it's a bloody shame that more people haven't had a chance to watch it.
2) Buffy the Vampire Slayer - another show that goes beyond the realm of science fiction (or more specifically, it's cousin, the horror genre). What started as a slick metaphor for high school life turned into one for life in general. Everybody has to fight inner demons. On "Buffy," they also had to fight actual demons. It mixed humor and drama almost seemlessly, letting you laugh even during the most dire episodes. Okay maybe not... I don't I even crack a smile during the "The Body," but it ranks as one of the most powerful episodes not because of who dies in the episode, but because it wasn't metaphysical. It was just nature taking it's course and everybody in the show suffereed the consequences of that event through the next season and a half. Buffy lost her anchor and was set adrift for a good long time. But that's why the show is so powerful. The heroine isn't perfect. Her friends do bad things sometimes and everybody has to deal. The point is, they do.
3) Beast Wars - yes, the 1990s version of the Transformers we all know and love. And not because I'm a fan of the Transformers from my youth. "Beast Wars" turned into something different starting with a single mid-season episode during the first season. In that episode ("The Probe," for those that know the show), BW Megatron morphed from a haughty version of the original 1980s Megatron into a devastatingly effective bad guy with a single syllable: "Probe?" That question turned Megatron into a forward-thinking antagonist that would keep the Maximals (the future versions of the Autobots, for those that *don't* know the show) on their toes for two more seasons. "Beast Wars" was more than just a toy commercial. The show's characters became more real than their 2-D versions from the '80s. When somebody died (and they really died), it almost always meant something to someone. There were ramifications felt through show. It was almost viral in plot, with characters growing deeper with each episode instead of starting at the beginning again like some reset button was pushed after the ending credits. Megatron might have been the foremost example of this, but others fit the bill too. It wasn't just a cartoon; it was great science fiction.
4) Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - who knew that putting the Star Trek formula into a static environment like a space station would turn the show into the most forward-moving series in the Star Trek library. It wasn't just an adventure of the week like the original Star Trek. It took the most groundbreaking idea of ST: The Next Generation--a universal bad guy that wasn't laughable--and spread it over much of the series. But unlike the Borg, the Founders and Jem'hadar became frightfully effective bad guys that viewers could actually get their claws into. They weren't simply unstoppable. They had real depth. And, better yet, they weren't relegated to special episodes during Sweeps Week. They were a major part of three entire seasons. There weren't mere battles, but an actual War with a capital W. The Federation actually lost sometimes and didn't turn the tide in the last ten minutes of the episode. People died and didn't come back. ST:TNG might have forged the way, the DS9 brought it home right to the last frame of the last episode.
5) Farscape - it's been accused of being a sci-fi soap opera. And maybe it is. But my oh my, did that show have heart. One would be able to count on one hand the shows that had so many characters grow from episode one to the final mini-series. Nobody stayed the same at the end as they were in the beginning, not even Rygel. Not only that, but "Farscape" had some of the most imaginitive, trippy episodes of television that ever existed in the history of the tube. It paved the way for the Sci-Fi Channel's original TF series to come. It's only a shame that their original movies don't stack up to their serial shows.
6) X-Files - the only show to get harnassed to Friday evenings and come out the other end smelling like a rose. And it was the first mainstream sci-fi-esque show to hit the big time in a good long while. It started as a word-of-mouth hit that interspersed a conspiracy of alien abductions and government cover-ups with great standalone episodes and became a TV success story that didn't really get duplicated until "Lost." Sure, the so-called mythology episodes started to get a little tangled at the end, but it was always a thinking persons TV show and didn't have to apologize for it at the end of it's impressive nine season run.
7) Star Trek and ST:TNG - there are probably people who would cry foul at these two series being linked. That's too bad; they are. Star Trek the series helped fireblaze science fiction as something networks weren't afraid to show in prime time. The movies, however, are what really paved the way for TNG. And you know all those annoying season-ending cliffhangers that TV shows nowadays seem to love? Blame TNG for that. I still remember watching the Borg kidnap Capt. Picard. I remember the Borg's neferious plans for him. I remember seeing Picard as Locutius. And I remember screaming "What?!?!?!" at the words "To be continued..." that appeared at the end of the episode, only to wait months to find out what happened next. Other series might have tried it first, but it was TNG that made it a popular trend that continues to this day.
8) Firefly - who cares that it only lasted a dozen little-watched episodes? Who cares if Joss Whedon blames Fox for it's demise (Friday evening time slot that changed from hour to hour seemingly at random, preemptions from the World Series, a dearth of advertising). It's still a great show, as DVD-loving fans discovered. So much so, in fact, that Universal even decided to make a movie out of it. Basically, it took the Buffy formula of melding drama and comedy, and brought it near perfection. The only reason it doesn't rank higher is the fact that there are so few episodes.
9) Lost - ABC probably didn't know how big of a hit it had on it's hands when it first aired. It has a great hook though and tempers and expands it through it's ever-unfolding mystery and plentiful backstory. It's another one of those shows that require audience participation, at least in the form of watching it from week to week and at most with the neat little Easter eggs interspersed throughout episodes (Was that Sayid on the TV in the background? Is that a Darmha tattoo on that shark?). It has so far managed to keep ahead of it's mystery, showing the audience enough to keep it going while showing ever-more interesting and disturbing elements to that mystery. Here's to the show keeping that up.
10) Buck Rogers - sure, it's cheesy. Yes, that robot is--dee-be-de-be-de--annoying. But in the 70s, it was state of the art. Gotta give it props for paving the way for the great shows that would come after it the chance that they got.
Honorable Mention (in no particular order):
Angel - if only every season was a good as the last, maybe it would rank higher.
Knight Rider - admit it, every kid wanted a car like KITT.
Roswell - another soap opera and definitely cheesy at times, but still worthy of mention.
Dead Like Me - I've only just started watching it and so far so good...
Eureka - ditto.
Stargate - the longest running sci-fi show in the history of television. The reason can be summed up in three words: Richard Dean Anderson.
Andromeda - cool enough for synidication.
Dark Angel - making post-apocolyptic America actually seem real. Plus, there's Jessica Alba... | | comments: 1 comment or Leave a comment |
| I saw a recent post on the Padded Cell about the rumored TF characters showing up in the upcoming movie. Until I hear something a little more official, I'm going to treat it as a rumor. That won't stop my little mini-rant about some of the more... interesting choices.
On the Autobot side (Op, Ratchet, Ironhide, Jazz, and Bumblebee), things seem pretty much fine and dandy. Of the five characters that the post listed, only Ironhide ranged away from the original incarnation and even he is close (a pickup instead of a van). But on the Decepticon side... whoa nelly there are some odd ones. Megatron as a tank makes sense to me. Starscream as a jet is a given. Then things start getting interesting. Soundwave, if he's in the movie, won't size change which means he'd be a bit on the short side.
Vortex... now I like the Combaticons just as much as the next guy, but Vortex? Why him? And Brawl too for that matter. Nevermind that he's now rumored to be a police car instead of a tank. Why not a tank too? Because three of them would apparently be too many, as that is what Devastator is rumored to be. Scorponok as a minion type... fine, it's not like the Headmasters will get on the big screen no matter how popular the movie (or movies) are. Bonecrasher as a mine clearing vehicle is fine too, aside from whole Constructor/Devastator thing being shot.
Now, in general, I'm a pretty reasonable guy about the whole movie thing. I don't expect the producers to resurrect Scatman Crothers to play Jazz or I'll pout. I just want to be entertained and going into the theater in July 2007, in the end, that is still all I will be expecting. But still, some of the changes on the Decepticon side, if this stuff is true, are pretty damn substantial. If this was a new line and new concept ala "Robots in Disguise" or "Energon" or something, that would be one thing. But when the average joe walking into the theater hears the Devastator is going to be the movie and has visions of Constructicons dancing in their heads, they will be sorely disappointed at the sight of a tank. Reused names are something we've gotten used to in Transformers. But if the movie is really based on Generation 1 characters, shoehorning names into concept art might cause a bit of a backlash.
But maybe the average moviegoer won't give a crap. I doubt all the people that go to see comic book movies in theaters are up on the ins and outs of the mythology that lifelong fans are. But I do think that the TF universe is vast enough to put in characters without restarting the whole thing from scratch. | | comments: 4 comments or Leave a comment |
| According the the A.V. Club article I read in the latest issue of The Onion, that is apparently the four words warning all future viewers of X3 that there might be something to fear in the quality of the upcoming movie. But then I got to thinking: why? Brett Ratner, before helming the latest X-Men movie, did three movies: Rush Hour, Rush Hour 2, and Red Dragon. In other words, an okay movie, a good movie, and a really good movie. Not only that, but three movies that made some dough in theaters too. He's directed the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Edward Norton, and frickin' Anthony Hopkins (and, um, Chris Tucker). He has a bonafide track record. What exactly scares people about this? The A.V. Club writers hinted at one possibility. In a rather backhanded compliment, they said that Ratner's lack of a direction style might serve him well, as the trailer makes X3 look like it was directed by Bryan Singer, who did the previous two X-movies. I'm not really sure that this is the actual reason for the uneasiness though. Steven Spielberg can switch gears between popcorn flick ("War of the Worlds") and art house flick ("Munich") and be rightfully lauded for his versatility. I'm certainly not comparing Ratner to Spielberg (not remotely), but is one man's versatility really another's lack of distinct style? Nope there's something more to it and I think it can be summed up in one word.
Arrogance.
I'm sure that everybody that sits in a director's chair and has to tell Academy Award winning egos what to do in a given scene has to have confidence in their vision and abilities as a director. But in Ratner, it comes across as something a bit more than confidence. Rush Hour's success sort of kicked the guy's ego into overdrive, and it wasn't slowed a bit by the fact that the sequel went on to score even more at the box office. Then he gets tapped to direct a movie with some real attention-grabbing names, like Hopkins. In an interview before Red Dragon came out, he said that he thought that his movie was superior to a previous take on the material (Michael Mann's "Manhunter" with Brian Cox as Hannibal Lector!). Mann, a great director in his own right, scoffed a bit at the notion. And very likely the arrogance. After all, who exactly was Brett Ratner anyway? The dude that directly a couple of buddy comedies? He hadn't proven anything yet. And even with a pretty darn good Red Dragon under his belt, he really still hasn't. But *he* doesn't know that. And he doesn't seem to know that he comes across as a punk at best or a prick at worst.
And I think that's what has people uneasy. Not Brett Ratner the director, but Brett Ratner the bragger. I haven't seen anything from him comparing the first two X-movies with his, but I'm pretty sure that he'll think his is superior. Maybe it will be and maybe it won't. I have high hopes based on the trailers I've seen. No matter what, the series has legs enough to carry the movie to some monster box office receipts. It could be swill and will likely still top $200 million. And that's probably something that has people feeling queasy all over again. Four movies and four box office successes. That won't deflate that ego anytime soon.
(PS -- It's not that I really care that much about what Brett Ratner does in his career. He *is* a punk and needs more people to tell him that. I just want to see a good X3 movie and could give a rat's ass who the director is. This post is more a way to shake the rust of my writing more than anything else; this was just the topic in my head when I got in the car this evening. I's got myself a fic to finish by mid May if I want to enter it into a contest and I haven't written a word since the end of March.) | | comments: Leave a comment |
| Back from Italy, which was fun yet border just on the right side of "too long". I was ready to be home by the end, so naturally it was extended another day thanks to frlying standby on a full flight.
So here's a list of things from the trip you won't find in any guide book:
1) When eating breakfast at a busy hotel, make sure the 150+ tour group doesn't get to the food at the same time as you. 'Cause you won't get any food.
2) When travelling by train, sit by the window and get stuff out of your bag in the overhead bin a lot. The person on the aisle loves that.
3) When playing in the sea at Cinque Terre, have fun in the waves, but watch out for the rocks just waiting for the waves to push you into them.
3) The Bologna Stairs: When walking up and down stairs in an Bologna apartment building, don't be cute on the stairs, or risk falling on your ass and getting a bruise the size of Connecticut. Like I did.
3a) Also visit Cip the cat. He's funny.
4) Go to Venice (okay that one is in guide books). And when you do, stay where we stayed. It's quiet, relatively cheap, and a short "bus" ride from the loud, expensive places.
5) When flying standby, don't, at least on a busy flight. Or risk yet another pain in the ass.
6) Don't stay in the hotel at Amsterdam's airport. Why pay 200 euro a night for the privilege of sleeping when you can pay 5 euro to store your bag in a locker and take a nap in what they call at Schipol "comfortable chairs."
6a) Before you get out of your comfortable chair, stay for a while and act like you'll be getting up any time now. And watch the people flock and hover over you for ten minutes just the chair your about to leave.
7) When flying, first class rules all. Better chairs, better movies, better food, and nothing but a rope between you and the plebes in the back of the plane. Point and laugh at your leisure. (Of course, it helps to work for the airline your flying because then you aren't paying what the rest of them are paying).
Probably as a result of close contact with other people in enclosed places with circulated air, I have my first cold in over two years right now. I woke myself up in a coughing fit after three hours of sleep and and never quite slept again. On the upside, I had one of those half-awake, half-asleep dreams that lead to a new short story, so there ya go...
"Serenity" comes out on Friday and I'm hoping to make it. Sci-Fi kept showing clips during a Firefly marathon on Tuesday which only made me more excited for the movie. Serenity's big competition appears to be a movie about Jessica Alba in a bathing suit. I'm pretty sure that's not exactly counterprogramming.
Last but not least, I'm considering growing a mustache like Jason Lee in "My Name is Earl." Actually, I'm not. | | comments: 2 comments or Leave a comment |
| Tired today. Something I'm used to, I'm afraid, as it happens almost every weekend that I work the overnight shift. That is because of my perverse need to spend time with my wife. I reason that I'm still young so a couple of nights of 3-4 hours sleep is nothin'. I usually change my mind about that right around, well, now. I'm doing the head-bob, the universal sign of tiredness even as I type.
I just googled myself and found a non-Transformers reference to me, specifically to a research project I help on in grad school. Kick ass. Check that, I've now found three. Well, doesn't ISU rule for putting this stuff up for me to look at in the dead of night. Of course, reading about long-winded research projects wouldn't be a good idea right now. I'd be like taking a sedative at this point. Still, it's interesting... well, to me at least.
Speaking of writing, I finished a long-overdue fic the other day and find myself in a rather unusual position. I'm not sure what to write next. I've got a list of fics I've started or would like to start, but nothing is jumping out at me. I'll need to dwell on that for a while and see what I come up with.
Blah blah... I'm going for a walk now and hope that wakes me up.... | | comments: Leave a comment |
| That's right. First post in month's and it's to say I'm leaving. On a fifty minute plane trip. On the world's smallest airplane.
Okay, not the smallest, but smaller than I'd like.
Still, it's cheaper than driving would be, so there ya go. Say a lot about gas prices. Anyway, if I post again in the next couple of days, that means that I survived my flight to the world's smallest airport. On that, I might not be exaggerating. Later! | | comments: 4 comments or Leave a comment |
| No, that is not the start of a bad joke. It's actually my best description of two Italian business men we saw of the train from Paris to the airport at the end of our vacation. The dude facing us was the spitting image of Dustin Hoffman. The guy facing away from us sounded like an Italian-speaking version of the bounty hunter who somehow managed to miss Han Solo at a range of three feet in the updated version of Episode IV. Happily, that wasn't the highlight of the trip. It was good fun. We rented an apartment for a week while we were there, something I highly recommend. Same price or cheaper than a lot of hotels, much bigger space, and we saved an assload of money running to the grocery store instead of eating out every meal. Saw everything you're supposed to see while we were there, plus a few things they don't talk about a lot in all of those vacation guides. I've got pics, but I know I won't get around to posting them, so we'll just leave it.
We left the day before Episode III came out and I opted not to watch it in French... though my wife did point out that the cheesy dialogue would then be unintelligible to us and we could add our own instead. And after we got back, we just never got around to getting to a movie theater. After all is said and done, I'll probably be the last science fiction fan in the United States to actually watch the movie. Though on one lazy night on vacation, I did catch Episode IV in French on TV. It's easy enough to follow having seen the a few hundred times. But my god, did Vaders voice suck in the voiceover!
And after getting back from vacation, we got a new dog, an Italian greyhound. Cutest little bastard in the world, I'm telling you. He's a fully-grown guy that weighs all of 12 pounds and looks ridiculously small next to our huge 85 lb racing greyhound. He's only been in the household for four days but he hasn't had any trouble getting acclimated to the new surroundings. Now we just have to get him to stop trying to sleep under the covers on the bed... | | comments: 2 comments or Leave a comment |
| I just finished a "new" novel by Robert Heinlein, which I'll get into in a second. First, I wanted to take a moment and talk about supposedly new material by authors/artists that are long dead. It happens in music (Tupac's career has never been better with all the "new" material coming out in that last few years) and it happens in books. But I wonder what the actual creators of these works would think about it. I'm sure that estates of the deceased probably know best, but isn't it strange that someone would sit on material for X number of years without releasing it if they thought that it was worth releasing? I think it's akin to something similar you sometimes here put out there, that Clancy or King might not appreciate their old third-grade teacher publishing little Tommy Clancy's or little Stevie King's 500 word short story about killer aardvarks or something. This new Heinlein book is almost an over-the-top example of this. It's called his first novel in both the forward and the notes section at the end, neither of which I really read I admit. Judging from various future historical elements though (again, I'll get into details in a mo'), it was definitely written before 1940. Heinlein died in 1988. You'd think that if he really thought that novel worthy of being released that sometime during that almost 50 year span he would have done it. Instead, it's almost like that third-grade short story in a way. It's certainly Heinlein-esque, but he sure hadn't honed his craft at that point.
The book is called "For Us, the Living." I like the title a lot more than I liked the book. There are elements in it that are in all Heinlein books that I've never been fond of: rampant nudity (granted it's supposed to show that current mores are bound to change, but as we learned on Seinfeld, there are some things that weren't meant to be seen in the nude, like opening a jar of pickles), spankings and the general role of women. But he is very good and incorporating a description of future societies almost seamlessly into the story, typically in dialogue. In addition, when he is at his best is when he's talking about human nature, with some very poinient and salient observations in the books I would consider the pinacle of his work and among the must-reads of science fiction (Starship Troopers, Time Enough for Love, and Stranger in a Strange Land). Starship Troopers might actually be my favorite work of his with less male/female stratification and more action to go with his usual human observations (though Time Enough for Love probably has his best female character in the form of Dora, who I wish had been in it more). His books are very dialogue heavy, which can be wearying sometimes, but it's in that dialogue that he does so well describing a society of the future in a way that people can understand perfectly how he envisions it.
"For Us, the Living" is essentially vintage Heinlein only moreso. The plot, in short, is as follows. Perry, a navy pilot from 1939 gets into a car accident with his car going over a cliff. The last thing he remembers waking up is plummeting to some rocks near a beach. He wakes up in 2086 in the Sierra Nevadas. Some hot chick, the staple of sci-fi novels, named Diana finds him and brings him to her house. She nurses him back to health and starts telling him about some of the changes that have happen since his when. Notice that there is nothing in there about doubts about his 1939 origins. Rare is the character in this book, in fact, that doesn't take this completely fantastic phenomenon of Perry jumping 150 years into the future completely in stride, as if this sort of thing happens all the time despite the fact that it does not. Other things happen towards the end and briefly in the middle, but the rest of the book is essentially different people from 2086 talking to Perry talking about what has happened since 1939 in order to catch him up on everything from history, economics, and human society, which was the only one that was interesting.
I'd say that eighty percent of the book is dialogue. Unfortunately that dialogue was boring to the point of tears most of the time, consisting of those people from 2086 talking to Perry about history, economics, and human society. Needless to say, Heinlein got better at this as his career went on. The society stuff was interesting enough, but is better discussed in future novels. The history stuff is all right, but was a little dry not to mention wildly off the mark. Good enough imagination and he was eerily prescient in his assessment of the role of religious organizations in politics (especially now in the era of John "Beware of Spongebob's Gay Lifestyle" Dobson and his ilk), but he started out way off the mark with Roosevelt losing his reelection bid in 1940 (one or two years after he wrote this) and didn't have humankind getting to the moon until after 2089. He's not Nostradomus, I know, so I don't blame him for that really. I do blame him for the dullness of the delivery though. Even that dullness does not compare to the 40-50 *pages* (of a 290 page book) devoted to the description of the economic system used in the future, complete with equations and tables. I am ashamed to say that just went ahead and skipped most of that because I was afraid I'd fall asleep, just like almost did in college in econ class.
In all, not a book I'd recommend. Judging by the fact that it was never greenlit by *him*, even with loads of time to edit it or release it as is, I would say it's possible that Heinlein himself might feel the same way. If you're going to read a Heinein book, I'd go with one of the three I mentioned earlier. Those are the gems of his frightening big library of work. | | comments: Leave a comment |
| I'm not sure that word games with old, bad sitcoms is right, but I'm sure it's better than quoting Mariah Carey songs, right Doomkitty? :)
Something that I think is great fun about television shows is that, unlike movies, you can take your time having a story unfold, building drama and intrigue as a season goes on while peppering that season with one-shot episodes that help develop characters. In a lot of ways that's a big reason why I almost like TV shows (good ones anyway) better. Science fiction makes the best of this, I think. I saw the neo-Battlestar Galactica miniseries today. It was a pretty darn riveting way to spend four hours, I can tell you that. I haven't seen much else of the series SciFi had on, but from the miniseries alone you can see that the relationships between characters and the hopeless situation that they are all in would be a lot less poiniant as a two-hour movie as they are with a 13-22 episode season (I honestly don't know which... 13 eps seems to a basic cable standard that SciFi tends to break). The same can be said for other sci-fi-ish series: Star Trek, Buffy, Farscape, Firefly...
Now for the awkward segue to the movies part of the post. Apple.com's "http://www.apple.com/trailers">trailers page (addicting sight for a preview fiend like me) has a trailer up for "Serenity," the new movie due out in September based on Joss Whedon's Firefly. While trailers always show the best of a movie, it still looks kick ass (and I don't just mean River's new kick ass moves either). I would be quite happy indeed if this was able to become a franchise ala Star Trek, since the series never really got a fair shake. And while I think the TV series would better utilize the characters, I'll certain take a movie over nothing.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes out this weekend, and the general plan is to hopefully see it. Movies like this, or X-Men, or LotR, or the upcoming TF movie always worry fans. And rarely pleases some of them. The same will likely be true for Hitchhiker as well. There was one rather notorious early review of the movie that a TF buddy found a while back (which I can't find right now, dammit!) that said it was basically the worst thing on film. But when I skimmed the review it sounded like someone who wasn't seeing his favorite jokes from five books and/or the radio program showing up. Ain't It Cool News has posted up some further reviews that seem to have a general theme (and *spoilers* so don't read them it you don't want any!), which is this: people who like the source material, but seem to realize that it can't be verbatim from that source material, but rather must by the very nature of the beast be sort of "other universe" based on the characters with some familiar adventures seem to like the movie. People who like the source material and want the movie to be that source material only better do not like the movie.
In short, I expect to like the movie.
AICN also has a review of Revenge of the Sith by way of Kevin Smith here. Beware here as well, for it is spoiler-laden (profanity-laden too, but this is Kevin Smith... :) ). In a few short words, he really, really liked it. | | comments: 1 comment or Leave a comment |
| I write fanfiction. This likely does not surprise a single person on my friends list as I know most of you from other online forums and such. However, aside from a few people, most of my offline friends don't know this. I'm not ashamed of it. Far from it. My frickin' web page has my name plastered on the top of it and is the first thing that pops up when I toss my name into Google. It would take a very short research session to discover my number one hobby this side of sitting on my ass watching something on TV. Writing's just something that I like to do to relax and junk, so I don't make a big deal about it when I'm hanging out with people.
My writing might be something that isn't widely known, but my adoration for all things Transformers is. Well, today I got myself an email from a friend from college with the title of one of my fanfics as the subject. In all honesty, I didn't make the connection until I read the email. She said she was reading something that her sister wrote and came across the Transformer fic in question with my name as the author. She read it and liked it. She then wrote the seven words in the subject header above: perhaps you should explore becoming an author.
I stared at that sentence for a while. I won't lie to ya and say that I don't want to publish something, especially as I explore the vast realm of original fiction (to be honest, most of the plot bunnies that are hatching lately have been outside of the realm of Transformers). I just know that it isn't an easy thing to do for the average joe, especially when one is best at is writing the three- to seven-page stories about a kid's toy line like the one my friend discovered. I'm not going to kid myself and say that it's possible, though I'm also not going to sit here and say that I suck at writing. I don't suck, but that doesn't mean I've developed the chops to make it a career either.
Still, seeing this from someone outside of the people who've been reading my stuff for the last seven years or so was heartening (especially since it was an older fic and I've gotten better since then). Even if it was from a friend. I feel more motivated somehow. I don't know. It was just a little surreal...
On a completely random note, I'm starting to wonder if I'm not a slightest bit allergic to coffee. That wouldn't be good, considering I work the night shift at times. Plus Coffeemate's Vanilla Carmel creamer is frickin' awesome! | | comments: 1 comment or Leave a comment |
| |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
scottwave's journal